Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add softspark/ai-toolkit --skill verification-before-completiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/softspark/ai-toolkitWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/verification-before-completion)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/verification-before-completion"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/softspark/ai-toolkit/verification-before-completion.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00032 | $0.02021 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01010 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
verification-before-completion scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verification Before Completion
The Iron Law
NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE
If you haven't run the verification command in this message, you cannot claim it passes.
Claiming work is complete without verification is dishonesty, not efficiency.
The Gate Function
BEFORE claiming any status or expressing satisfaction:
1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
2. RUN: Execute the FULL command (fresh, complete)
3. READ: Full output, check exit code, count failures
4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
- If NO: State actual status with evidence
- If YES: State claim WITH evidence
5. ONLY THEN: Make the claim
Skip any step = lying, not verifying
When To Apply
ALWAYS before:
- ANY variation of success/completion claims
- ANY expression of satisfaction ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!")
- ANY positive statement about work state
- Committing, PR creation, task completion
- Moving to next task
- Delegating to agents
Don't Assume It Exists
A prompt — yours, the user's, or another agent's — naming a file, table, column, endpoint, env var, config key, or dependency is a hint, not a fact. The name existing in text is not the same as the thing existing in the repo.
- Before you read from, write to, import, or quote any such resource, confirm it:
Readthe file,ls/grepthe path, list the table, check the lockfile. One look beats a confident guess. - Never reconstruct a file's contents, a function's body, or an API's signature from its name alone. The name tells you almost nothing about the shape. If you haven't read it, you don't know it.
- A plausible-sounding path or symbol is the easiest thing in the world to invent. Treat your own fluency here as a warning sign, not as evidence.
- AUTHORIZED security work (CTF, sanctioned pentest, defensive review) still verifies — probing whether a path/endpoint/parameter actually exists is part of the job, not an exception to it.
Declare Ungrounded as a Real Outcome
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 3d ago First seen · 171 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 5cd24baa02ac
verification-before-completion is a skill published in the GitHub repository softspark/ai-toolkit (170 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,021 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
unit-test
A Go testing workflow for writing unit tests: small tests that check individual functions or components. It supports table-driven cases, where many inputs and expected results are organised in one test, and subtests.
api-integration-test
Create, maintain, and run gated Go integration tests for internal APIs and service-to-service clients (HTTP/gRPC). Use for endpoint verification, contract checks with real runtime config, opt-in execution, timeout/retry safety, and integration failure triage in Go services.
load-test
Performance load testing specialist for writing k6/vegeta/wrk scripts, defining SLOs, modeling scenarios (spike/soak/stress/breakpoint), analyzing results, and identifying bottlenecks. ALWAYS use when writing load test scripts, reviewing test results, designing test scenarios, setting performance SLOs, or diagnosing…
e2e-test
Design, maintain, and execute reliable end-to-end tests for critical user journeys with Agent Browser as first choice for exploration and Playwright as the preferred code path for suites and CI. Use for E2E strategy, journey coverage, flaky test triage, artifact collection, CI gating, regression prevention, and…
fuzzing-test
A Go testing guide for generating fuzz tests, which repeatedly try varied inputs to find crashes and unexpected behavior. It first checks whether the code is suitable for fuzzing.
go-test-review
Review Go test code for quality including table-driven tests, t.Helper usage, assertion completeness, boundary cases, benchmarks, fuzz tests, and coverage targets. Trigger when PR contains test.go files, test helpers, httptest usage, testing.B, testing.F, or testdata directories. Use for test-quality focused review.